A year and a half after filing a climate lawsuit against American energy producers, the City of Annapolis, Maryland is now refusing to disclose how much it will pay to Sher Edling – a private, San Francisco-based law firm – if the court awards the city a favorable verdict.

It raises two key questions: Why are Annapolis Mayor Gavin Buckley and his top administration officials refusing to disclose this information to the public? And what specific information are they hiding?

It was a recent open records request from the non-profit Energy Policy Advocates that finally forced Annapolis to release its agreement with Sher Edling, but the city is still withholding separate attachments, including the “Scope of Work” that lays out the direction of how the law firm should approach the case and the contingency fee agreement which determines the exact percentage it would take from a settlement.

Sher Edling is the best-known law firm involved in the climate litigation campaign, representing more than a dozen plaintiffs and often operating on a contingency fee basis – an agreement that the firm won’t be paid directly for their work during litigation but, if successful, will be rewarded with a percentage of the total damages.

In a press conference in February 2021 to announce the lawsuit, Annapolis Deputy Manager for Resilience and Sustainability Jackie Guild said the idea of a climate lawsuit was brought forward by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, which seemingly pushed the city toward hiring law firm Sher Edling LLP as outside counsel for its lawsuit:

“I also received information from my contacts, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who is busy with pushing towards energy efficiency and clean fuels. They asked me if I knew about these lawsuits and how they were progressing and I had some knowledge, and they thankfully provided me with some additional knowledge.

I asked them about different lawsuits they were aware of, and I started exploring some of the information they provided, and the law firm Sher Edling appeared again and again with the lawsuits that have been brought by the twenty-four other states and cities and counties in the U.S. that are suing the fossil fuel industry, and they by far have the most experience.” (emphasis added)

In other cases around the country, including where Sher Edling is serving as the outside counsel, the states and municipalities have disclosed the exact numbers for the contingency fee agreement. This includes the state of Minnesota where documents obtained from public records requests last year revealed that the agreement between the Minnesota attorney general and Sher Edling dictate that the firm would receive “16.67% of the first $150 million recovered, and 7.5% for any portion greater than $150 million.”

In Colorado, the City and County of Boulder and the County of San Miguel have disclosed on the Boulder County website that outside law firms would receive 20 percent from a favorable settlement.

Yet, in Annapolis, top city officials in Mayor Buckley’s administration are intent on keeping these details secret for unknown reasons.

It’s not the only instance during this lawsuit where officials from the Mayor’s office have kept others in the dark, including the Annapolis City Council. During that 2021 press conference announcing the case, reporters asked why the city council had been seemingly left out of the loop and “why [they] weren’t given more notice” about the city’s decision to file the lawsuit. Buckley defended this lack of transparency as an “executive process,” while also admitting that the city seemingly doesn’t have a fully defined plan when it comes to the case:

“We’re working the answers out as we go along, so they’re in the process now. There has to be a point where you tell people, but at the same time when you do these things you can’t play your hand. We wanted to be kind of—what I see as kind of the front of the line early in. You’re going to see this develop all throughout the country now. Many municipalities are looking for the same answers that we’re going to. So, we have time to involve the council, and they will be involved, and we enter many lawsuits in this city without the council. It’s the process. It’s an executive process.” (emphasis added)

That lack of transparency already undermined Annapolis’ case with the public, according to the Capital Gazette:

“After initially feeling enthusiastic about the news, those feelings diminished Tuesday morning, Alderwoman Elly Tierney said, when constituents flooded her inbox with questions about the litigation. She had few answers.

“‘Residents are smart, and they pick up on it, and they say, ‘Wait a minute, you’re spending tax dollars for two months working on this,’ said Tierney, D-Ward 1. ‘You have to put aside other stuff. So, it does involve the council. … And we’re in the dark about it. It just doesn’t sit well.’”

Now, Annapolis seems intent on further limiting transparency around its climate lawsuits and it remains unclear why city officials are going to great lengths to keep the strategy and financial details of its case from the public.

The citizens of Annapolis have an interest in knowing what percentage of a potential settlement would be awarded to Sher Edling – particularly since the complaint requests damages to compensate the city for climate-related damages “for the benefit of the general public.”